America today has the potential for the greatest economic boom and spiritual renewal in our history. Presidential candidate and publishing magnate Steve Forbes shows how we can once again brighten economic prospects for everyone, reform our corrupt political institutions, and restore the severely weakened moral foundations of our country.
I picked this up from my dad's library. Back in the 90s, Forbes ran for president. Forbes was right about China, Russia, cryptocurrency, and a bunch of other things. His book was written almost 30 years ago probably before today's politicians gave any thought to the future. Even though Forbes didn't win the nomination - he had a lot of good ideas. It's too bad no one listened.
I read this book when I was young, and at the time I found it persuasive. Being an affluent, sheltered white teen, I had no trouble buying into his narratives. But once I learned more context about history, politics, economics, etc. - it was apparent how simplistic and misguided many of his arguments are.
I'll give one example: he shocks readers with a hypothetical - imagine a foreign power has destroyed 25% of Army divisions. Well, he says, the scandal is that President Clinton has already done this by shrinking the military! He's referring to Clinton downsizing different branches of the military in both personnel and budget. How galling - I thought - President Clinton wants us to have a weak military!
In actuality, this was the peace dividend. The only other superpower in the world had just collapsed, and it was very justifiable to stop spending insane amounts of money on our defense budget. The spending cuts also actually began under Forbes' hero, Reagan.
Eisenhower, who knew a thing or two about military strategy, also slashed our overall military budget knowing that nuclear weapons changed the importance of having a large standing army. He also doubled the military's R&D budget to ensure America held a technological advantage.
You can make a smart argument against cutting military spending, but Forbes doesn't do that. He doesn't tackle his opponent's best arguments, instead he uses straw man positions to make his look sensible - something he does repeatedly.
It adds up to a very disappointing and unchallenging manifesto